# Any Clinton supporters would be unhappy with Obama candidacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767 "2008-01-16T19:11:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/121 "2008-01-25T14:36:49Z")
DSeid - this is what I meant re: Clintons’ agreement about the Presidency: > [@](#): > > I’m not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me," Obama told a gathering of Nevada Democrats after Thursday night’s Las Vegas debate. > > That was a veiled reference to an account by biographers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta that the Clintons sealed a “secret pact of ambition” to both win the presidency—which has been vehemently denied by Clinton advisers. > > Asked if Obama was referring to the pact, a spokeswoman replied, “Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents.” While this doesn’t qualify as unambiguous, everyone who reads the statement can tell what Obama meant and what he was insinuating. And considering that the account Obama is referencing has long been discredited by the alleged source - it’s dishonest. Re: NAFTA Obama repeatedly accuses (until now) that Hillary said that NAFTA was a boon to the economy. Hillary never said this and Obama already has the real score about this. Obama could certainly claim that Hillary changed position which would be fine. But to repeatedly claim that Hillary said that NAFTA was a boon to the economy despite the correction is a lie. This is clear and unambiguous. Re: Negotiation with rogue leaders: Hillary didn’t say that “meeting with rogue leaders” is naive and irresponsible. What was irresponsible is meeting with them without preconditions - which was the question posed during the debate and which Obama botched. So for Obama to say that Hillary is against tough and direct diplomacy is a lie. Sorry about the third one. I usually look at all the lies each camp spout whether it’s against the other camp or not. BTW, what exactly are the smears from the Clinton camp to the Obama camp. Is it any worse than the D-Punjab document and the smear on Clinton that the Obama campaign perpetrated very early on? I’ve yet to hear a factually inaccurate statement from the Clinton camp about Obama. Have you? Can you give me just one example. The facts do not support the impression of most people that the Clintons are the dirtier campaigners this season. It’s the Obama camp that should have this reputation by a wide margin. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/122 "2008-01-25T14:39:25Z")
Philosphr: I don’t care who wins. I’m not American. I’m just surprised at how far the facts are from a lot of people’s impressions about the campaign. The media bias in favor of Barack doesn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/123 "2008-01-25T15:05:35Z")
[QUOTE=Anduril] Philosphr: I don’t care who wins. I’m not American. I’m just surprised at how far the facts are from a lot of people’s impressions about the campaign. The media bias in favor of Barack doesn’t help. [/QUOTE] I’ve been following his campaign and been researching his record - and have decided to back him instead of Hillary. I’m campaigning for him in CT and to be honest, I find Hillary’s campaign distasteful and her tag teaming crap with Bill [tho I can’t blame him, I’d stand up for my wife as well] is just plain wrong, and I think it will hurt her campaign over time. I mean everyone has their opinions and I’m not afraid to admit I want Barack in the white house because I think we need to clean house and have new fresh ideas coming in from him. Hillary will simply be the coming of the same old calvary…not good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/124 "2008-01-25T15:14:58Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] I mean everyone has their opinions and I’m not afraid to admit I want Barack in the white house because I think we need to clean house and have new fresh ideas coming in from him. Hillary will simply be the coming of the same old calvary…not good enough for me. [/QUOTE] As I’ve said, I’ll be content in voting for either one, and I know that my first choice won’t be the ultimate nominee. I have some preference for Obama over Clinton, for the reasons you’ve suggested, although there would be nothing wrong with a return to the effectiveness of the Clinton White House of the 90’s. We shouldn’t need to run from our success, although I understand why Obama feels a need to diminish the Clinton legacy. My concerns with Obama are that too often these days, bipartisanship simply is a code word for capitulation to the conservatives (look at our current congress). Combine that with a strategy of veiled or not so veiled praise for past Republicans, and my wariness grows. If he can stand for his principles, I’ll be satisfied, but suggesting that the Democratic White House of the 90’s was not a success isn’t good for us as a party. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/125 "2008-01-25T15:43:31Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] As I’ve said, I’ll be content in voting for either one, and I know that my first choice won’t be the ultimate nominee. I have some preference for Obama over Clinton, for the reasons you’ve suggested, although there would be nothing wrong with a return to the effectiveness of the Clinton White House of the 90’s. We shouldn’t need to run from our success, although I understand why Obama feels a need to diminish the Clinton legacy. My concerns with Obama are that too often these days, bipartisanship simply is a code word for capitulation to the conservatives (look at our current congress). Combine that with a strategy of veiled or not so veiled praise for past Republicans, and my wariness grows. If he can stand for his principles, I’ll be satisfied, but suggesting that the Democratic White House of the 90’s was not a success isn’t good for us as a party. [/QUOTE] I agree - and I don’t want to suggest the white house of the 90’s wasn’t successful in it’s own right. But certain aspects of the dem white house of the 90’s did not bode well for the US stance in the middle east in the 21st century. I simply do not want a return of that now. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/126 "2008-01-25T16:44:46Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] I’ve been following his campaign and been researching his record - and have decided to back him instead of Hillary. I’m campaigning for him in CT and to be honest, I find Hillary’s campaign distasteful and her tag teaming crap with Bill [tho I can’t blame him, I’d stand up for my wife as well] is just plain wrong, and I think it will hurt her campaign over time. I mean everyone has their opinions and I’m not afraid to admit I want Barack in the white house because I think we need to clean house and have new fresh ideas coming in from him. Hillary will simply be the coming of the same old calvary…not good enough for me. [/QUOTE] I’m sure your choice is well-considered. I would just like to know why you find Hillary’s campaign distasteful and why you find “tag teaming” wrong. I’ve yet to hear anything Bill said that was wrong or unfair about Obama. OTOH, Michelle Obama has said a number of things that ARE distasteful - race-baiting the “fairy tale” comment comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/127 "2008-01-25T16:56:26Z")
[QUOTE=Anduril] Well, he insinuated that the Clintons had an agreement about the presidency, painting Hillary, in the process as ambitious. This started of the “kindergarten comment” from the campaign which the media lambasted not even considering that it was merely a factual response to Obama’s repetition of a Republican attack point. (This might not qualify as unambiguous but the reporter asked clarificatory questions and it was clear from his answers that he was referring to the nonexistent “agreement”) He claimed that Hillary said tough and direct diplomacy was naive and irresponsible. He claimed that he has a universal health care plan. He doesn’t. It’s universal access. Instead of clarifying his point when this was pointed to him, he attacked Universal Healthcare from the right (attacking the concept of mandates - and he still does today). He claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a boon even after being corrected. He repeated this a number of times after the correction. He claimed that the release of the white house records are within the control of the Clintons. He repeated this a number of times after he was corrected. [/QUOTE] Aww. I set you up so that all you had to do is offer one really good one, and instead you try to shotgun with a bunch that aren’t that good. Do you want to try again and just pick the one you think is best? Or shall I pick? That way we can focus a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/128 "2008-01-25T16:58:32Z")
[QUOTE=Anduril] Re: NAFTA Obama repeatedly accuses (until now) that Hillary said that NAFTA was a boon to the economy. Hillary never said this and Obama already has the real score about this. Obama could certainly claim that Hillary changed position which would be fine. But to repeatedly claim that Hillary said that NAFTA was a boon to the economy despite the correction is a lie. This is clear and unambiguous. [/QUOTE] Unless there’s quotes around the word boon, meaning that she said it directly (as opposed to just saying that NAFTA was good), there’s little question that Hillary was an advocate for NAFTA in the '90’s. From [Bloomberg News](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=us): > [@](#): > > Clinton promoted her husband’s trade agenda for years, and friends say that she’s a free-trader at heart. `The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,'' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. `Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.‘’ > […] > At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting `a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.'' She added: `It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.‘’ FactCheck agrees that, while Clinton has changed her stance since, she originally supported and spoke out in favor of NAFTA. It’s no lie to state that Clinton called NAFTA a good thing. She did, plain and simple. Her support for a plan which proved, a decade later, to be a failure in the eyes of many is a valid point. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/129 "2008-01-25T17:22:23Z")
[QUOTE=Anduril] I’ve yet to hear anything Bill said that was wrong or unfair about Obama. OTOH, Michelle Obama has said a number of things that ARE distasteful - race-baiting the “fairy tale” comment comes to mind. [/QUOTE] Have you been reading this thread at all? I’ll stick just to the one that you ironically use as your alleged point against Obama. Michelle Obama never stated that Bill Clinton said electing a Black man to the office was a fairy tale. What [did she say?](http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyah1Vm8PgxuOcHpBk2RcIBgY4CQD8U5AVC00) > [@](#): > > Michelle Obama said Sunday her husband is the person America needs in the White House right now and criticized anyone who would dismiss his campaign as being built on illusion or fairy tale. > She said Barack Obama is the right candidate “not because of the color of his skin, but because of the quality and consistency of his character” and that postponing his bid for the White House was not an option. > “I know about the sense of doubt and fear about what the future holds, that keeps us hoping and waiting for a turn that will never come,” she said. “There are a lot of doubters and naysayers out there talking about, ‘I’m not sure America is ready for a black president.’” > But she declared that “we are more ready and prepared than we can ever know.” > Greeted by a standing ovation when she took the stage at the opening of the Trumpet Awards — an event celebrating black achievement — she went on to criticize anyone who would “dismiss this moment as an illusion, a fairy tale” No, she didn’t bother to correct the misperception about what Bill had said. But she didn’t create a lie about him or explicitly repeat it. And she was addressing what had been a major reason for less than stellar support for Obama among some Blacks: the belief that it _is_ a fairy tale to believe that White Americans would vote for someone identified as Black. > [@](#): > > … she included blacks who might be skeptical about whether Obama is electable. Of course what did Bill actually mean? Oh yes, it was his lie characterizing Obama’s consistent record against the war from the start as a fairy tale. Acch, I’ll give one more quick one - HRC’s calling Obama a slum lord’s lawyer. A blatant lie. A Swiftboat smear. The Clintons do Rove proud. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/130 "2008-01-25T18:04:55Z")
Not a lot of time this morning to address the absurdity of some of these claims against Obama (Including those found in that ridiculous link from **Hentor** ), but just didn’t want to let this one slide by un-addressed. . . [QUOTE=Anduril] Is it any worse than the D-Punjab document. . . [/QUOTE] You mean the one that repeats a comment [Hillary made about herself, first](http://blogobama08.blogspot.com/2007/06/punjab-schmumjab-face-facts-clintons.html)? The one where, “_Obama, sometimes too quick to apologize, took full responsibility for the memo and any harm that it caused, despite the fact that he hadn’t even seen it yet_”? That one? There just aren’t enough rolleyes. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/131 "2008-01-25T18:24:07Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] Not a lot of time this morning to address the absurdity of some of these claims against Obama (Including those found in that ridiculous link from **Hentor** ), … [/quote] Wow! Simply rank handwaving? That’s pathetic. I don’t have a dog in this fight, really, and this kind of stuff doesn’t change my opinion about who I’ll vote for, but the glazed over messianic treatment some supporters give for their preferred candidate is at once amusing and frightening. Here’s the first issue in the “ridiculous” link: [http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/15/obama\_campaign\_circulating\_negative\_story\_about\_bill\_clinton](http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/15/obama_campaign_circulating_negative_story_about_bill_clinton) > [@](#): > > We’ve just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton – that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006. > > […] > > The Obama camp is taking criticism today over the Times article mainly because, as Taylor Marsh points out, Obama has made a frequent point of bemoaning the “smallness” of our politics. As Ben Smith asked today, does Obama’s use of oppo research “compromise his promise of a new politics?” > > The question seems even more pointed in light of the Obama campaign’s spreading of bad stories about Bill. > > Asked for comment on whether it was appropriate to spread negative stuff about Bill, given that he’s not running in the primary and is popular with primary voters, Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to directly address the question about Bill, instead saying: “I don’t know why anyone would take umbrage with the circulation of publicly available information.” > > The story spread about Bill ultimately turned out to be false. It ended up on Drudge yesterday, where it was given heavy play for many hours, though there’s no proof that it was given to Drudge by the Obama campaign. After Drudge posted it, The Observer’s Politicker blog thoroughly debunked the story, pointing out that Bill’s schedule proved that he’d actually given the speech the night before, on Sept. 10. Sounds like they were pretty sleazy in pushing a false story about Clinton to me. Just FYI, here’s an apparent timeline of attacks from the perspective of Clinton supporters: [http://www.attacktimeline.com/](http://www.attacktimeline.com/) I’d forgotten about Obama attacking Paul Krugman. I’ve much admired and respected Paul Krugman’s work for a long time. He’s a progressive who’s always demonstrated a high capacity for reason and thoughtfulness. If you choose to start a tangle with him, and you’re a Democratic candidate, you better have good reason and strong facts to back it up. Just another thing about Obama that lowered him in my opinion. To bring it back to the thread here, it just doesn’t sound like the Obamaniacs here are putting much thought into their positions or their arguments. (And once again, I like Obama better than I do Clinton!) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/132 "2008-01-25T18:28:07Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] I’d forgotten about Obama attacking Paul Krugman. [/QUOTE] Do you have a link? I’ve noticed that all of Krugman’s op-eds now seem to be anti-Obama pieces, but I didn’t know there was a backstory there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/133 "2008-01-25T18:36:58Z")
I think that one problem here is that Obama and Clinton just aren’t that different in their policy positions. They say they want to talk about the issues, but the more they do that, the less they differentiate themselves from each other. Hence the sniping. It’s come down to a popularity contest, and it’s just too easy to take the low road-- smearing the other person. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/134 "2008-01-25T18:52:50Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Do you have a link? I’ve noticed that all of Krugman’s op-eds now seem to be anti-Obama pieces, but I didn’t know there was a backstory there. [/QUOTE] I had a vague recollection of reading about this longer ago than the beginning of December, but that’s about the earliest I’ve been able to find stuff: [http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives\_view.php?id=26667](http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26667) [http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/8/113320/183](http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/8/113320/183) [http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663](http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663) [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007\_12/012664.php](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012664.php) An interesting observation from Kevin Drum at the end of the last linked article that pertains to both the glassy-eyed view of people here and my concerns about “bipartisanship”: > [@](#): > > Every four years the media finds itself swooning over some candidate that it crowns as a “truthteller,” and they’ve pretty much already anointed Obama in that role this year. But rather than leaving well enough alone — the smart strategy — I can’t help but think that Obama has decided that he should actively court the Tim Russerts and Tom Friedmans of the world, the ones who ritually demand bipartisan pain as the only solution to America’s problems. In this sense, I can understand better how some could misguidedly move from Obama to McCain - both have been selected as “truth-tellers”, no matter what the objective facts are. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/135 "2008-01-25T22:04:39Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Wow! Simply rank handwaving? That’s pathetic. I don’t have a dog in this fight, really, and this kind of stuff doesn’t change my opinion about who I’ll vote for, but the glazed over messianic treatment some supporters give for their preferred candidate is at once amusing and frightening. [/quote] Wow! Simply insulting me personally in Great Debates? Because I said I didn’t have time to address every point at that moment, and only chose one to respond to in that particular post? That’s what I call pathetic. And frankly, I’ve had enough of the thinly veiled character jabs you’ve taken at anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion on this topic. Messianic treatment? Glazed over? I’m done here. I’ll let someone else play your little game. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/136 "2008-01-25T22:39:17Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] I had a vague recollection of reading about this longer ago than the beginning of December, but that’s about the earliest I’ve been able to find stuff. [/QUOTE] Well, all those links refer to the same Obama rebuttal of a Krugman article. Krugman inaccurately characterized Obama’s plan as not covering everyone. Say what you will about not mandating insurance, that is different from not covering everyone that wants it. My question is why Krugman has decided to have a personal campaign against Obama. I’ve seen at least 5 columns attacking Obama in recent months. And he was apparently attacking from before Obama fought back. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/137 "2008-01-25T23:39:58Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Well, all those links refer to the same Obama rebuttal of a Krugman article. Krugman inaccurately characterized Obama’s plan as not covering everyone. Say what you will about not mandating insurance, that is different from not covering everyone that wants it. My question is why Krugman has decided to have a personal campaign against Obama. I’ve seen at least 5 columns attacking Obama in recent months. And he was apparently attacking from before Obama fought back. [/QUOTE] Mr. Krugman initially was just evaluating the different health care proposals of the different candidates. Krugman gave Obama the benefit of the doubt that eventually, he would also follow suit with a mandate because it is essential to achieve universal coverage. But when Obama began to attack the concept of mandates, Krugman was taken aback because Obama’s attack on the concept of mandates was exactly how Republicans attacked (and eventually defeated) the concept of universal health care. So, Krugman began to be more critical of the Obama health care plan. Now, Obama, instead of looking into Krugman’s points gave a press release showing that Krugman changed his position about the candidates’ health care proposals (this is not true)- much like the kind of document you will put out about another candidate. This is when Krugman became more critical of Obama himself. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/138 "2008-01-25T23:43:17Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Aww. I set you up so that all you had to do is offer one really good one, and instead you try to shotgun with a bunch that aren’t that good. Do you want to try again and just pick the one you think is best? Or shall I pick? That way we can focus a bit. [/QUOTE] Well, I don’t know what you will consider good. So take a pick. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2008, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/139 "2008-01-25T23:51:37Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] Michelle Obama never stated that Bill Clinton said electing a Black man to the office was a fairy tale. [/QUOTE] I never said she did. But bot she and her husband allowed the misperception to exist because it benefits his husbands chances. She race-baited. > [@](#): > > Of course what did Bill actually mean? Oh yes, it was his lie characterizing Obama’s consistent record against the war from the start as a fairy tale. What was the lie there? That Obama didn’t pull down the speech from his website a year later? That Obama didn’t say that he wouldn’t have known how he would have voted had he been a US Senator at that time? That he voted almost exactly like Clinton did since then? All of those are true. Bill Clinton was merely pointing out that Obama’s point of differentiation as far as opposition to the Iraq war is concerned is overstated. > [@](#): > > Acch, I’ll give one more quick one - HRC’s calling Obama a slum lord’s lawyer. A blatant lie. A Swiftboat smear. The Clintons do Rove proud. Obama did represent Rezko who was a slum lord who let his tenants freeze in winter. Obama understates his relationship with Rezko, but Rezko is a much more significant figure in his political life. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767/140 "2008-01-26T00:33:43Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Well, all those links refer to the same Obama rebuttal of a Krugman article. Krugman inaccurately characterized Obama’s plan as not covering everyone. Say what you will about not mandating insurance, that is different from not covering everyone that wants it. My question is why Krugman has decided to have a personal campaign against Obama. I’ve seen at least 5 columns attacking Obama in recent months. And he was apparently attacking from before Obama fought back. [/QUOTE] I don’t understand. Krugman talked to one of the guys who helped to develop Obama’s plan… > [@](#): > > I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes — based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others — that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope. … .. It sounds like he was working from information directly from the candidate’s advisor. If Krugman had it wrong, so did the guy who developed it, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-clinton-supporters-would-be-unhappy-with-obama-candidacy/433767.md?page=8)